User talk:White Krane

I see you are beginning to get into the Printing & related pages arena. Glad for any help, and may you do some good for common sense.DGG 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG! I am totally knew to this so I am not sure if this is the right way to even reply to you??? But I want to say that I appreciate your comment greatly! Especially since this Gun Powder Ma seems to be intent on deleting or changing my edits (some of my edits are not listed under my username since I made some before I had a username and also I made some on a different computer but did not realize that the computer had logged me out of wikipedia!) Anyways, you seem very reasonable and friendly and look forward to working along side the Wikipedia community!White Krane 16:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the madhouse! Johnbod 18:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official welcome

Welcome!

Hello, White Krane, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Johnbod 18:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replies and all that

Some people, including myself, prefer to see replies on the same page the comment was written, to keep everything in one place--I call tell the reply is there because I have preferences set to add every page I edit--which includes talk pages--to my watchlist. But other people want replies on their own talk page, & if they do, they usually say so. There are 10 different right ways and 100 wrong ones to do everything. Expect anything. However, it is the general custom that comment and replies about a particular article go on the article's talk page, not on people's user ptalk. Many people, including myself, also set preferences to receive off-line email. You have to enter the email address, but when someone send you email, the sender does not see the address. I use a separate email account for this.

Most people enter some information about themselves on their user page. Some enter a great deal, some enter nothing. I have what I consider a reasonable amount. Many people use their real name, many don't. I use an acronym because I work on 1 or 2 very contentious pages--much more so than printing. Ma is erratic. He is not changing your edits in particular--he will change every edit he doesn't like. Many of the changes will however be good & most of what he adds is good.--at least in my opinion. As for the rest, take turns changing them back again, so it is clear where the consensus lies. And just for fun, go look at the Phaidos Disk article. DGG 19:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or Talk:Spread of printing , especially if you have any knowlege of European Middle Ages/geography. I would agree, if no preference is stated, most people prefer replies on the same page. Johnbod 20:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DGG means the Phaistos Disc , which usefully shows the importance of using the "show preview" button next to "Save page". For a moment i thought it had vanished in a Wiki-explosion! Johnbod 20:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the below again. I do not understand why "Khoikhoi" would delete my reply that was to Johnbod and DGG? anyways, again:

Thank you both Johnbod and DGG! Thanks Johnbod for the official welcome and the info! I will have to figure it out later since I am busy writing exams and with the Holidays, but plan to return to it soon (I still do not understand how to cite info but this is just my third day at this!). I really do not mind anyone editing my writing as long as there is improvement, however I do not like it that some people seem to have extreme POV over debatable subjects. I especially do not like it that they call people that do not agree with them things like an "East Asian centrist gang." That is a real turn off, especially to anyone that is new to Wikipedia and would like to help! - - The Phaistos Disc is a very interesting item and I like the phrasing about it "It is the first known document manufactured from reusable characters" but I do not think that it is movable type for printing (which seems to me about making duplicate copies). The Phaistos Disk seems to be a unique thing. BTW on early Chinese bronzes there are also reusable characters that were stamped into the molds before the casting so this is not the only early known example, but it still might be the earliest. I believe the examples that I read about are from the 7th c. B.C.E.White Krane 22:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry...

Dear White Krane, I apologize for reverting you and protecting your talk page. Based on Dmcdevit's block, I assumed you were a sockpuppet of a banned user who's caused quite a bit of trouble on China-related articles lately. Please accept my apologies. Khoi khoi 22:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Khoikhoi and Dmcdevit for correcting this error so quickly! I guess that it is a very good lesson on how easily the whole WP project can be damaged. I am also so sorry that people can be so abusive, especially some one from the university where I teach. I look forward to helping in any way that I can!White Krane 23:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Please check your email too. Khoi khoi 23:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're real--I was suprised to hear that you might not be. :)DGG 04:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woodblocks

Hi, Glad your trouble sorted out! I would start by adding to Woodblock printing (a less controversial page than printing etc). Woodcut is only for uses for art images, WP is everything. The earliest colour printing there (now) is Han, on silk. What I would really like is the earliest Indian, as I see tantalising hints of very early printing on cloth there. By all means add money & new years cards. The full version at WP & a shorter one at Woodcut (for images) is best. The Chinese Art bits looked fine to me - again this is not a controversial page I think (not one I add to).

On prints in China, my impression is that the elite brush-painting tradition did not produce a printed "single-leaf" equivalent, as in Europe or Japan. Is that right? The cards & door guardians were more popular devotional images? Put them all in, but i think this is a valid disctinction to use.

Generally, talk page discussions move on & points from earlier just get stranded, so its not always worth responding to them. Often best to comment at the bottom, but no hard & fast rules. As you will see many discussions get completely chaotic.

Johnbod 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right about India, but I have not seen anything yet though. I can think of a possibility though that I will try to follow up on later. You are totally correct that the New Year Prints, printed religious images, printed playing cards, etc. were all popular arts and did not received the status of "high art" like Literati (scholar-official) calligraphy and painting did in premodern China. However, they are now getting the attention they deserve and I have seen exhibits about them in Taiwan, Hong Kong, China and in the United States. If they are now concidered "high art" how do we now deal with that here? Remember the same could be said about ukiyo-e prints from Japan. Although very popular in Japan, they were not a "high art" and likely came over to Europea as wrapping material. It was only after the French said they were great works of art that they became so in Japan!White Krane 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same with woodcut in the west - both should certainly be included, in both WP & W, but the distinction made. The Japanese side is also covered in Japonism and WP in Japan articles. It might be good to have a new separate article "Woodblock printing in China" if we get a lot more material. Johnbod 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tubofan

would that be Turfan ? I've copied your bit from printing to Woodblock printing; it needs citations if possible Johnbod 18:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnbod, the only thing that I did in "printing" was state near the beginning what is already on "Woodblock printing." Before at the beginning of "printing" it said that the earliest printed cloth was from Egypt in the 6th c. But in "woodblock printing" it already says that the earliest is from China before 220. Near the middle of "Woodblock printing" under "Development of Block Printing," the source is cited. I did not change the cited source when I took that bit and moved it "printing" since I do not know how to do that yet. If you could do that, that would be great since it is incorrect now!

Later (I am still writiing exams for my students) I do want to add everywhere something about movable type from Turfan, but I know that is going to cause some excitement so I want to do some more research first! This is all fun and stuff, but it is really time consuming!White Krane 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I added, which is new, and you, I think? "In the Tang Dynasty, a Chinese writer named Fenzhi first mentioned in his book "Yuan Xian San Ji" that the woodblock was used to print Buddhist scriptures during the Zhenguan years (627~649 A.D.). The oldest known Chinese surviving printed work is a woodblock-printed Buddhist scripture of Wu Zetian period (684~705 A.D.); discovered in Tubofan, Xinjiang province, China in 1906, it is now stored in a calligraphy museum in Tokyo, Japan."

Yes, it's very time-consuming! I'll change Turbo to Turf. Johnbod 18:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, I see why you think I added that. I did not, all I did was make it a new paragraph so it looks like I added it. If you check back on earlier versions you will see that it was there before I even got on WP. I did not change it to "Turbofan"!!! hahah, that must be just an honest mistake or some one vandalized it. I do not know what it was originally since I did not change that statement at all. good luck figuring it out! what I meant was the cite right before that, about the earlier printed cloth is now wrong, the cite was for the Egyptian cloth from 6th c. All that I added in was the bit about the chinese printed cloth from before 220, but I did not know how to change the cite (if you can not change it, I will follow up and try to figure it out but can not do it now! I gotta get this final exam to the printer later today!!!)White Krane 19:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok - I'll see what I can doJohnbod 19:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - actually that was me being lazy before. Wikipedia:Footnotes is amazingly badly explained (I find) but you get used to it Johnbod 19:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk :Etching - support invited for proposal

Hi!, Your support is invited at Talk:Etching to reverse a new and unneccessary disambiguation page that has appeared without consultation. Thanks & enjoy the holidays! Johnbod 23:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Wilson (artist)

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Fred Wilson (artist), we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/wilson/index.html. As a copyright violation, Fred Wilson (artist) appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Fred Wilson (artist) has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Fred Wilson (artist). If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Fred Wilson (artist), after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

You are of course welcome to write a new article about the artist which doesn't violate any copyright, as soon as the previous article is deleted. Delta Tango • Talk 03:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All is good

Hi, I received your e-mail and see you posted on Talk:Fred Wilson (artist). I've posted a reply there.

Let me just add that it's great that you're interested in adding art-related content to this project. I appreciate your contributions, being new just makes you extra welcome. If you have any questions at all, feel free to either drop by my talk page anytime and I'll be happy to answer them. Delta Tango • Talk 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]